The Expert RecordThe standard for expert witnesses using AI

AI in the Courtroom · Fabricated citations and facts in filings

State v. Sandoval (Aarons sanction)

Appellate counsel in a New Mexico murder appeal filed a brief prepared with ChatGPT that described nonexistent witnesses and testimony. The New Mexico Supreme Court held him in contempt, ordered $5,000, removed him and referred him to the Disciplinary Board.

Primary document readDirect contempt; $5,000; barred from the Court; briefing stricken; disciplinary referral August 21, 2026

By · Published · Updated · How this site is researched

What happened

Oscar Renee Sandoval was convicted of murdering the mother of his children and sentenced in 2025 to life in prison. The case came from Doña Ana County. Stephen Aarons, a private defense attorney based in Santa Fe, took the appeal to the New Mexico Supreme Court and filed the principal brief.

According to Reuters, the court found that the brief "contained false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses." The court said the material appeared to include "fictional statements that the shooter was wearing dark pants and a white shirt." The Santa Fe New Mexican reported that the brief referred to several nonexistent witnesses and attributed fictional testimony to at least one real witness.

The defect differs from the usual pattern. Most sanctioned filings contain a hallucinated citation (a reference to a case that does not exist). This brief misstated the trial record itself, which is the factual foundation an appellate court reviews.

Aarons told the court at an August 21, 2026 hearing that he loaded a computer-generated transcript and other case materials into ChatGPT, expecting "a bulletproof summary." In a statement to Reuters he said he "did not understand the degree to which AI could 'hallucinate' facts" and described the episode as "an honest mistake."

What the court did

The court's written order is captioned Dispositional Order of Direct Contempt, in State v. Sandoval; In re Stephen D. Aarons, No. S-1-SC-40845. It is per curiam, signed by Chief Justice Julie J. Vargas and Justices Michael E. Vigil, C. Shannon Bacon, David K. Thomson and Briana H. Zamora. It is nonprecedential under Rule 12-405(B) NMRA.

The order records what Aarons admitted: that he used ChatGPT to prepare the brief in chief; that the brief contained "false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses—Officer Michelle Amarillo, Officer Sanchez, Manal Al-Jibury, and Teresa Marquez"; that it attributed fabricated testimony to real witnesses; that it misrepresented the authority in State v. Lopez and State v. Manus; that he did not verify the brief; and that he did not tell his client.

The court ordered that Aarons is found in "DIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT"; that the matter is referred to the Disciplinary Board; that he is "barred from appearing before this Court, pending the outcome of the investigation and proceedings, if any, before the Disciplinary Board"; that the Law Office of the Public Defender is appointed to represent the defendant; that "all briefing filed in this matter is hereby STRICKEN"; that a new briefing order will issue and the case will be heard during the Court's 2026-2027 term; and that as a sanction for direct contempt he pay "a sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to the State Bar of New Mexico Client Protection Fund" within thirty days, notifying the Court in writing when payment is made.

Justice Bacon asked counsel at the August 21 hearing whether he followed the news, adding: "Because the problem with lawyers relying on AI hallucinations is an above-the-fold story every single day."

Where it stands

The written order resolves the reporting discrepancies this entry previously carried. The $5,000 is a sanction for direct contempt payable to the State Bar of New Mexico Client Protection Fund, not a fine to the court. The hearing was held August 21, 2026, and the order issued from it; news coverage in the week of September 9, 2026 reported the order rather than a second ruling.

All briefing is stricken, so the appeal restarts. Kim Chavez Cook of the Law Office of the Public Defender was assigned on September 2, 2026, and the Court has directed that the case be heard in its 2026-2027 term. The Disciplinary Board referral had no located outcome as of September 17, 2026, and the bar on appearing before the Court runs until that process concludes.

The obligation it engaged

The conduct engaged Clause 3 of the Expert Record Standard (independent authority). A summary of testimony is a statement of fact about the record. Each witness and each quoted line had to be confirmed against the transcript before it went into a filing. The same point runs to Clause 4 (checkability before adoption): the transcript was available, so the output could have been checked, and it was not.

Clause 2 (non-delegation) is also engaged. Deciding what the trial evidence showed is the core judgment of appellate advocacy. Handing that task to a system and adopting its account treats the output as a finding. Under the governing test, a competent appellate lawyer working only from the transcript would have produced a summary with real witnesses. The filed brief could not be reproduced that way.

Sources

What could not be confirmed

The copy of the order that was opened carries no file stamp in its text layer, so the filing date is taken as the August 21, 2026 hearing date. It was obtained from a news organization's mirror rather than from the Court's own system. Whether the $5,000 was paid, and the outcome of the Disciplinary Board referral, were not located.

About this entry

This entry was checked against the primary document listed in the sources. The entry for State v. Sandoval records conduct and what the tribunal did. It does not characterize a holding and it is not legal advice. Last checked September 17, 2026. More matters like this one are collected under the fabricated-authority matters. If something here is out of date, write to [email protected].

Top